Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

1/24

OXFAM BRIEFING NOTE 2 OCTOBER 2013

www.oxfam.org

Tractors on a sugar cane plantation which occupies ancestral land of the indigenous group Guarani-Kaiow. The displaced community nowlives in a temporary camp next to the land on the side of Highway BR-163, Mato Grosso do Sul. Photo: Tatiana Cardeal

SUGAR RUSHLand rights and the supply chains of the biggest food andbeverage companies

This paper sets out how one crop sugar has been driving large-

scale land acquisitions and land conflicts at the expense of small-scale

food producers and their families. At least 4m hectares of land have

been acquired for sugar production in 100 large-scale land deals since

2000, although given the lack of transparency around such deals, the

area is likely to be much greater. In some cases, these acquisitions

have been linked to human rights violations, loss of livelihoods, and

hunger for small-scale food producers and their families. Major food

and beverage companies rarely own land, but they depend on it for the

crops they buy, including sugar. These companies must urgently

recognize this problem, and take steps to ensure that land rights

violations and conflicts are not part of their supply chains.

7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

2/24

2

1INTRODUCTION

Since 2000, nearly 800 large-scale land deals covering 33m hectares

globally an area four times the size of Portugal have been recorded.1

This land has shifted from smallholder production, local community use, or

the provision of important ecosystem services, to commercial use, driven inpart by the rising demand for large-scale crops like sugar.

Governments, businesses, and financial investors must respect and uphold

the rights of communities and seek their informed consent before engaging

in any land-related activities.2 While food and beverage companies are not

usually direct land holders, they are collectively major buyers of commodities

grown on large plantations, often in countries plagued by land rights

violations. Food and beverage companies must urgently recognize these

issues, and take steps to ensure that land rights violations and conflicts are

not part of their supply chains.

BEHIND THE BRANDS

In 2013, Oxfam launched Behind the Brands, part of its GROW campaign.3

GROW calls on governments and companies to build a better food system:

one that sustainably feeds a growing population and empowers poor people

to earn a living, feed their families, and thrive. Behind the Brands tracks ten

of the worlds biggest food and beverage companies and assesses their

policies and commitment in helping to create this system. These 'Big 10' are

Associated British Foods (ABF), Coca-Cola, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg,Mars, Mondelez International, Nestl, PepsiCo, and Unilever. Collectively,

they generate revenues of over $1.1bn a day.4

The Behind the Brands scorecard5ranks the Big 10s policies and

commitments in seven critical areas: women, small-scale farmers, farm

workers, water, land, climate change, and transparency. Of these themes,

land is the one on which the companies score worst. The Big 10 lack

adequate policies to ensure that local communities land rights are protected

along their supply chains, and none has declared zero tolerance of land

grabbing (see Box 7 below).

Access to land for small-scale farmers is a pivotal part of a better food

system. Access to common lands provides communities with water, fodder,

fruits, nuts, and other resources often vitally important for women to feed

themselves and their families. This paper sets out how one crop sugar

has been driving large-scale land acquisitions and land conflicts at the

expense of small-scale food producers and their families.

7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

3/24

3

2 SUGAR AND LAND RIGHTS

The 2008 boom in food prices is widely recognized as having triggered a

surge in investor interest in agriculture: from mid-2008 to 2009 the number of

reported land deals rocketed by around 200 per cent.6 Investment in

agriculture, moreover, is desperately needed. Agriculture is vital for foodsecurity, and is the crucial growth spark for many developing economies.7

Private investment can contribute to inclusive growth, environmental

sustainability, and poverty reduction.

However, too often land investments have led to human rights violations,

loss of livelihoods, alienation of peoples spiritual and cultural ties to land,

and sometimes violence and destruction of property and crops. Oxfam has

called this development in reverse.8 Women living in poverty are at

particular risk,9 since they are less likely than men to have land titles or a say

in decisions affecting their access to land.10 For communities and small-scale

farmers, loss of land is disastrous for livelihoods and food security.

Since 2000, nearly 800 large-scale land deals by foreign investors, covering

33m ha globally, have been recorded, as well as 255 deals by domestic

investors.11 Owing to the lack of transparency around land acquisitions,

however, and the under-representation of domestic deals, the real number

could be much higher. Nearly half of these deals have taken place in

Africa,12 and many in countries with weak land governance13 or with

alarming levels of hunger, including Mozambique, Sudan, and Zambia.14

The five countries with the largest total land acquisitions by area, covering a

total of over 16m ha, are South Sudan, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia,Democratic Republic of Congo, and Mozambique.15 Cambodia is the

country that has the most reported deals, with 104 concluded since 2000.16

While struggles over land are not new, they have taken on renewed

importance as pressure on land increases. Investors,17 driven by rising food

and fuel prices and by growing consumer demand, have rapidly expanded

large-scale crop production. Small-scale producers are sidelined as the

market offers companies huge rewards for exploiting land, but without

safeguarding peoples rights.

7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

4/24

4

Box 1: What makes a land acquisition a land grab?

Large-scale18

land acquisitions become land grabs when they do one or more

of the following:

Violate human rights, particularly those of women;

Flout the principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC see Box 6below);

Take place without or disregard a thorough assessment of social, economic,

and environmental impacts;

Avoid transparent contracts with clear and binding commitments on

employment and benefit sharing;

Eschew democratic planning, independent oversight, and meaningful

participation.19

SUGAR-COATED CONFLICTMany large-scale land acquisitions involve commodities that are heavily

used to produce both food and biofuels: sugar, soy, and palm oil.20 These

are predominately monoculture crops produced for markets that operate on

large volumes and small margins. Collectively they use 150m ha of land21

and have been linked to more than 380 large-scale land acquisitions since

2000.22

This report focuses on sugar as both a land-intensive crop and a key

ingredient for the food industry, with 51 per cent of all sugar produced being

used in processed foods such as soft drinks, confectionery, baked goods,and ice cream.23 Sugar is produced on 31m hectares of land globally24 an

area the size of Italy with at least 4m ha linked to 100 large-scale land

deals since 2000,25 though the area is likely be much greater since not all

recorded deals include information on land size.

In contrast, palm oil, while also a key food ingredient that has been strongly

linked to large-scale land acquisitions, only uses half as much land as sugar.

Soy is the biggest land user by far,26 but just 16 per cent of soy is used

directly in food products.27

In the period between 1961 and 2009, global sugar and sweetenerconsumption more than doubled.28 Looking forward, in the decade to 2020,

demand for sugar is set to rise by a further 25 per cent.29 This will put

considerable additional pressure on land, which can contribute to conflicts

between communities and plantation companies.

7/27/2019 Sugar Rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies

5/24

5

Figure 1: Sugar, soy and palm oil: land footprint in 201230

Note: Sugar production: the 51% Includes only the percentage used in food manufacturing. An additional25% is used for grocery wholesale and other food uses.

Soy production: includes percentage used for soy f lour, proteins and edible oil; excludes soy used foranimal feed.

Sources: IBISWorld (2012) Global Sugar Manufacturing, IBISWorld Industry Report C1115-GL, p.15; S.Murphy, D. Birch, and J. Clapp (2012) Cereal Secrets: The world's larges t grain traders and global

agriculture, Oxford: Oxfam.

Box 2: Sugar and land in Sre Ambel, Cambodia

In 2006, land clearance began in Sre Ambel district in Cambodia for a sugar

plantation of 18,057.32 ha by two companies,31

both